FE is becoming an attractive career move for HE leaders

FE is often viewed as the less glamorous sibling of Higher Education (HE). But recent shifts in the education landscape suggest FE may be gaining traction as an attractive sector for leaders seeking purpose, clarity, and impact.

Higher Education is navigating one of its toughest periods. Its leaders face immense pressure as institutions grapple with funding challenges and workforce instability. That is combined with the sector’s growing international focus. While rewarding for some, this trend leaves others yearning for a more localised or UK impact. As a result, we’ve seen an increasing number of professionals reevaluating their career paths.

Stability and Security

The recent reclassification of colleges into the public sector has diluted some of the financial volatility that previously plagued FE, although it is still victim to funding changes. While not immune to economic pressures, institutions now benefit from a little more stability and reduced commercial risk. This shift is particularly appealing to leaders in HE who may be weary of constant restructuring and redundancies.

Proximity to HE and the Skills Agenda

The boundaries between HE and FE have never been closer. Regulatory bodies and inspectorates such as the Office for Students and Ofsted are increasingly overlapping in their oversight, particularly as universities expand into apprenticeship provision. This convergence has highlighted the strategic importance of skills development, a core purpose of FE. Boards within colleges are also recognising the value of HE representation, creating opportunities for HE leaders to influence at the board level, as well as considering those with an HE background for senior roles.  Greater recognition from HE about the importance of FE representation on their boards would be welcomed.

High Performance and Career Growth

FE institutions are achieving their best-ever Ofsted ratings, reflecting a period of high performance across the sector. Mergers and the growth of college groups have further expanded career pathways and new roles.

These are colleges worth £100 million rather than the low tens. These larger, more complex organisations demand strategic leadership, particularly in areas like corporate services. HR can be transactional in some colleges but needs to be strategic and ensure meaningful workforce planning. For leaders, this represents a chance to shape influential institutions with a regional focus and a strong community purpose.

Larger colleges and groups can also of course offer larger salaries, so attract individuals who wouldn’t have considered FE before.

FE leaders can see the immediate impact of their work

Making a Local Impact

For many leaders, the appeal lies in a localised mission. Unlike universities, which often prioritise global rankings, international students, and international research, colleges focus on transforming their communities, playing the oft-used term ‘anchor institution’ role. FE leaders can see the immediate impact of their work, whether through improving educational outcomes, enhancing society, forging partnerships with local businesses, or addressing skills shortages. This sense of purpose resonates with professionals seeking roles where they can make a tangible difference.

Addressing Barriers: Pay and Recruitment

There are still challenges around pay, with senior roles often offering lower salaries compared to HE that make it difficult to attract permanent candidates.

However, colleges are willing to invest in interim leaders, engaging them on a day-rate basis. This can be financially more beneficial to the interim candidate while reducing add-on costs such as pension contributions to the FE college, allowing them to bridge gaps in expertise. This approach not only attracts high-calibre professionals but also highlights the flexibility and openness of FE institutions to alternative workforce models.

Political and Sectoral Shifts

The political landscape is also influencing perceptions of FE. This Labour government has signalled intent to address the UK’s skills shortage. This drive could bring renewed focus and investment to the sector. Initiatives such as Skills England underscore a commitment to tackling challenges, further enhancing FE’s reputation as a vital component of the education ecosystem. Whether Skills England proves a success or not, only time will tell – but the intent is there.

For those seeking purpose-driven careers, FE provides the chance to lead institutions that are not only high-performing but also deeply rooted in their communities. FE is becoming a more attractive place for leaders ready to make a difference.

Let’s embed financial literacy into the curriculum

The government’s recent decision to reject the education committee’s recommendation for more financial education qualifications, in favour of functional skills, feels like a missed opportunity. Ultimately, young people keen to shape their futures stand to lose most.

Functional skills and GCSE maths are important, but don’t fully prepare young people for the complex financial decisions they will face. A recent report from Santander found that just 13 per cent of young people aged 18 to 21 found that the financial information they learned at school was applicable to their own finances.

From my perspective as a principal with a 17-year background in banking and finance, I believe we must equip young people with financial literacy as a core life skill.

We need a more systemic approach because the current system falls short. While functional skills and GCSE maths may teach compound interest or ratio and proportion, they rarely address the real-world decisions involved in weighing-up different loan options or choosing appropriate financial products.

At South Devon College, we fill some of these gaps within our personal development curriculum, working with the Money and Pensions Service to run workshops on saving, pensions, and avoiding dangerous lenders.

Financial literacy should not be an optional extra

This is progress, but FE colleges could do far more with properly funded support.

Financial literacy should be embedded into curriculum, not treated as an optional extra. That way, every young person receives consistent, high-quality education in an area that will affect their adult life.

After all, at some point, everyone will borrow money – whether it’s for a mortgage, car loan or credit card, and they need to understand pensions, insurance, and savings. If these topics aren’t covered in school or college, how can we expect young people to make informed choices or understand how to manage debt?

They need practical financial education, not just theory. It’s like teaching someone all about a car engine and then expecting them to be able to drive.

Without applied understanding, many learn through trial and error and, in the absence of reliable information, increasingly turn to questionable online sources for advice.

Research last year by Intuit Credit Karma suggests that so-called “finfluencers” on TikTok are now the main source of financial information for nearly 36 per cent of Gen Z.

The risks extend beyond poor budgeting: loan sharks, online fraudsters, and other ‘dodgy’ practices exploit financial ignorance, trapping young people in cycles of debt.

In an almost cashless society, digital literacy merges with financial literacy, both are needed to protect money and personal data.

Too many young people are starting their careers unprepared for important financial choices.

I understand the argument that adding financial literacy would overburden teachers. However, I don’t believe we need a standalone qualification. Instead, it can be integrated into maths, citizenship, or personal development, ideally all.

For that to happen effectively, targeted investment is essential. Lecturers need proper training and resources so they can confidently embed financial concepts into the classroom.

FE colleges can deliver the specialised, practical training required for real-life situations, but resources are already stretched. Without long-term funding, it’s hard to maintain such comprehensive programmes.

A national campaign

Many external stakeholders have a vested interest in boosting financial literacy. A well-funded campaign would help learners spot fraud, plan for retirement, and deal with everyday money matters.

Banks, financial advisers, and well-known experts like, Martin Lewis (MoneySavingExpert) could nationally collaborate with schools and colleges, providing practical tools for learners.

This campaign could cover core topics like budgeting, credit scores, debt, and the pitfalls of easy credit.

But it must consider vulnerable students too: young people without access to a basic banking service face higher risk of exploitation, so they need guidance on credit scores, consumer rights, and safe financial products.

With strong financial and digital awareness, young people can protect themselves from fraud, debt, and predatory practices. By embedding practical financial education into the curriculum, we can ensure they are ready to make informed choices.

Financial literacy is as crucial as literacy, numeracy, and digital skills, and all four overlap significantly. Together, they equip individuals for modern life.

The staffroom: Let’s move beyond compliance with equality impact assessments

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are used to assess the potential (usually negative) impact of policies, practices, or decisions on protected groups, as set out in the 2010 Equalities Act.  The purpose of EIAs is to identify, understand, and put actions in place to reduce, any negative impacts or inequalities that could impact specific groups.

Some institutions have questioned the need for EIA’s and stopped conducting them altogether. However, I believe they remain a crucial tool in ensuring that FE institutions uphold their commitment to fairness, diversity, and inclusivity.

EIA’s should be an opportunity to upgrade a neutral impact into a positive one. While protected groups should always be considered, individual colleges have the gift to include other groups; the care experienced, economically deprived, young carers, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller students. It may be that you want to include students from particular postcodes.

EIA’s should inform decision making and never be completed retrospectively.  Good EIA’s will help you promote inclusivity by actively working to ensure that policies and practices promote equality, diversity, and inclusion.

In FE we serve a diverse range of students. EIAs help ensure that all students, regardless of their characteristics, have equal access to opportunities, support, and resources. An inclusive environment supports better student outcomes, engagement, improved wellbeing and retention across diverse student groups.

For example, EIAs may highlight the need for additional learning support for students with disabilities or ensure that teaching materials reflect a diverse range of perspectives.

EIA benefits

  • FE institutions can identify how resources (such as support services, teaching materials, and facilities) are allocated and ensure that all students have equitable access.
  • Colleges that demonstrate commitment to equality and diversity are seen as more socially responsible and ethically sound. This can enhance their reputation and build trust with students, staff, and the wider community.
  • FE institutions can create more welcoming environments that foster a sense of belonging for all students.

So how do we ensure EIA’s are meaningful and not another tick box exercise?

  • Early on, involve students, staff, and community representatives in the assessment process, especially those from underrepresented or marginalized groups. Use their insights to understand the real-world impacts of policies and practices, rather than just assuming what might be relevant.
  • Senior managers faced with completing an EIA may simply be ill-equipped to know how certain groups will be impacted by the policy they are proposing. Rather than expecting them to know everything about everyone, offer them support and guidance. You hopefully already have established staff resource groups, student groups and EDI professionals within your organisation that can form a panel to be a “critical friend” and help them look at their proposal from different perspectives.
  • Offer resources and guidelines to ensure assessments are carried out with genuine consideration of diverse needs.:
  • Collect and analyse relevant data on the student population, including information on race, gender, disability, socioeconomic status. Use this to identify any gaps in provision.

So, you have completed your EIA and the policy has been approved.

Now, you should ensure that the findings of the EIA lead to concrete actions. Address identified issues in practice, and allocate resources to make necessary changes.

EIAs should be viewed as an ongoing process, not a one-time event. Regularly update them in light of new information, changing student demographics, or emerging challenges.

And continuously evaluate the effectiveness of policies and practices to ensure they remain equitable.

Create culture of continuous improvement:

Foster a culture where EDI are seen as core values rather than compliance obligations.

Encourage feedback loops from students and staff,  and actively work on improving the institution’s approach to equality and diversity based on ongoing assessments.

Share the results of EIAs with the wider community. Transparency helps build trust and ensures that the process is taken seriously. Be clear about how you will try to mitigate any negative impacts. The fact that you have recognised them will be appreciated.

Publicly commit to addressing any identified gaps or challenges, and communicate what actions are being taken to improve the situation.

By incorporating these strategies, FE institutions can move beyond compliance and instead ensure EIA’s are a powerful tool for real, positive change.

Chaos and contradictions: Francis review response round-up

Alternative qualifications? Four maths papers? Prescribed texts in English? The curriculum and assessment review could change the course of the GCSE resit policy.

The call for evidence left no doubt that college English and maths are in the crosshairs. Of the 44 thesis-worthy questions put to the public, 30 touched on resits due to overlaps between GCSE, 16-19 and affected subgroups. Failure to check that the questions were mutually exclusive led to significant repetition in the responses I’ve seen, ensuring nobody in DfE can possibly have time to read them.

In a frenzy, education organisations either published their full submissions or signposted existing recommendations. Don’t worry if you missed them. I’ve read them all (send help.)

Content in both GCSEs is universally declared “excessive”. Most proposals then suggest even more filler while being coy about what to cut, although I enjoyed the awarding body OCR’s honesty nominating “the more demanding content” for the chop in maths. In English, Pearson decried “excessive content” but joined others in wanting more; a return of spoken-language and broader non-literary texts.

OCR and the English Association want TV taught in English. TV? Neither the cultural capital and benefit to literacy of a novel, nor the relevance and relatability of TikTok; purely nostalgia for the days of wheeling in a TV trolley and having a quiet lesson.

The EA also claims that “the opportunities for reading contemporary and socially diverse texts have shrunk significantly,” but with no set texts in Language since 2015, blaming the GCSE is deflection. AQA soberly reports that despite a more diverse offer in their literature GCSE for schools, only 7 per cent of students were taught texts by women. I suspect the same pattern in resit English Language choices. There’s an unresolved tension between the EA’s desire for “more autonomy for teachers” and their case for a prescribed curriculum.

Almost everyone agreed on trimming the number of maths exam papers. After all, OCR’s Paper one is a highly accurate predictor of final grade. “It should be possible to change from the current three papers to two,” say MEI, before unveiling a four-paper GCSE, with different combinations of the four equating to different tiers. Poor exams officers.

Hedging bets, MEI alternately proposes “two distinct maths GCSEs”; one limited to grades one to four and the other taken by “half the cohort” (the richer half, we assume), graded five to nine. This overcomplicated proxy for tiering would create a ‘forgotten half’, unable to even aspire to a ‘strong pass’.

Then, because the scattergun was apparently still loaded, MEI suggests a third GCSE for resitters. In fact, everyone from the Royal Society to NCFE calls for off-brand resit qualifications.

English exams come under fire from all sides

The lone socially-just proposal for maths from White Rose Education suggests a “dual GCSE” of Applied and Theory as a parallel to English Language and Literature, with both taken by all students at 16. Then the single-tier, single-paper applied becomes, like Language, the resit route. The model protects parity with the non-disadvantaged students who are more likely to achieve it at 16 (avoiding a two-tier system), but allows for a slimmer curriculum, more deliverable post-16. It also facilitates those inspiring leaps across multiple grades that we see in English.

English exams come under fire from all sides. Assessed writing needs to involve “planning, drafting, and editing” (AQA), “drafting, crafting, editing” (Pearson), and “work drafted and redrafted” (EA). Aside from it being perfectly possible to demonstrate editing and drafting in exam conditions, we more urgently need to equip young people with the ability to accurately structure a sentence, or to adopt an appropriate tone, confidently and independently. I’m not sure the imagined dawdling cycle of “drafting across many iterations” (OCR) actually exists in professional writing outside of universities and the civil service. This, like wheeling in the TV, is a pull-back to booking a computer room for six weeks instead of teaching, and middle-class-favouring coursework.

Ironically, we need to look to White Rose’s model for the simplest solution for English resits. Let’s stop pretending the distinction between fiction and non-fiction justifies two papers in Language and move to a single paper. Pearson rightly calls out “undue repetition”. If English and maths post-16 required just one exam each, it would ease the delivery and exam demands on colleges.

Economically-disadvantaged students are blamelessly 19 months behind at 16, but gain ground by 19. They deserve a shot at the same exam. If the review doesn’t deliver that, it has failed.

Sir Ian Bauckham confirmed as permanent Ofqual chief

Sir Ian Bauckham has been confirmed as the permanent chief regulator of exams watchdog Ofqual, the education secretary has announced.

Parliament’s education select committee agreed in December that Bauckham, who has served a interim chief regulator at Ofqual since last January and was the government’s preferred candidate to lead it permanently, should be given the top job.

On Friday, the education secretary announced Bauckham had been formally appointed to the five-year role, after the privy council has confirmed his appointment.

This followed a recruitment process “conducted in line with the requirements set by the commissioner for public appointments”, said the DfE.

The education select committee said in December it hoped Bauckham would serve the full five years in the top role and help “restore much-needed stability” to Ofqual, following a churn of chief regulators in recent years.

Bauckham said he was “honoured” to take on the permanent role, after “dedicating [his] career to improving education and opportunities for young people”.

Bauckham ‘exceptionally suited’ to role

“Qualifications are the currency of education,” he said in a statement on Friday.

“Ofqual, as guardian of standards, will protect their value and integrity to ensure they remain trusted by students, teachers, universities and employers alike. 

“Only through rigorous assessment and stable qualifications can we measure education performance and highlight areas where we can improve opportunities for all students.”

Knighted in January 2023 for his services to education, Bauckham has been a member of the Ofqual board since 2018.

He served as chair from January 2021 until January last year, when he became the interim chief regulator.

Previously, he was CEO of the Tenax Schools Academy Trust, a position he stepped down from last January to assume his role at Ofqual.

Bauckham has also been chair of Oak National Academy, an arm’s length body of the DfE, since 2020.

As chief regulator, Bauckham will be responsible for ensuring Ofqual meets its statutory objectives and duties, including upholding standards and “fostering confidence” in qualifications and assessments. 

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said “with his vast expertise in education, Sir Ian is exceptionally suited to lead Ofqual in maintaining a system that provides all young people with high-quality, rigorous qualifications and training, equipping them with the skills needed to succeed”.

This is the turning point for higher technical education

There are tentative signs this is the year that higher technical education (HTE) is finally turning the corner and beginning its long-overdue growth. Recent conversations have strengthened my hope that this is the case. Employers, educators, and policymakers are increasingly recognising the vital role of HTE in filling the ‘missing middle’—the gap in skilled workers qualified at Levels 4 and 5.

Challenging the status quo

For decades, the national psyche has been fixated on a linear progression: A-levels to degree. This narrow focus has left HTE students in a no-man’s land, their contributions undervalued and their pathways underdeveloped. Employers often echo this systemic bias.

One large employer tried to reassure me that higher technical graduates could apply for their degree apprenticeship programme using accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL) to bridge the gap. While flexible on paper, this approach overlooks the barriers it creates, especially for underrepresented groups like women.  A Hewlett Packard study some years ago indicated that while men would apply for a role while meeting just 60 per cent of the criteria, women tended to wait until they met 100 per cent.

So why should we assume that potential candidates would jump on a recruitment offer based on attracting sixth form leavers for a degree apprenticeship?  Many would not see this as a suitable top up route for them unless mid-point entry was specifically mentioned by the employer as an option.

Such attitudes need rethinking. If we are serious about addressing the skills shortages in key sectors and getting our population into meaningful employment, employers must move beyond token efforts and create dedicated spaces for HTE graduates to thrive.

A changing narrative

Encouragingly, the tide is beginning to turn. The Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) now has initiatives promoting technician-level qualifications in response to industry needs. Similarly, an employer I spoke with recently opened our conversation by outlining plans to overhaul recruitment strategies and onboard more people with vocational and technical backgrounds.

There is also a shift among students. Rising concerns over university debt and uncertainty about degree outcomes are prompting more young people to explore alternative routes. For example, taking an HNC in computing while living at home and working part-time offers a low-risk, high-rewards pathway. If students decide after a year that their passion lies elsewhere—say in engineering—they can bank their HNC and pivot, with computing skills bolstering their future career.

IoT role

The country’s 21 institutes of technology are at the forefront of delivering HTE to bridge the gap between industry needs and education. Backed by £290 million of government investment, our mission is to empower students with cutting-edge facilities and skills in higher technical skills to drive economic growth.

Here in Greater Manchester, we’re striving to lead by example. Under the leadership of our mayor Andy Burnham, the city is positioning itself as a hub for technical education. The Greater Manchester Institute of Technology (GMIoT) is at the forefront of this movement. Our lead partner, the University of Salford, has made a bold investment, launching a new suite of higher technical qualifications. A new state of the art building being built on campus will act as a hub for the GMIoT partnership and a place of learning for those GMIoT students studying at the university.  Applications are steadily growing. Decisive action is crucial for shifting perceptions and demonstrating the value of HTE.

Building Momentum

FE colleges and private training providers across the region are also stepping up, expanding their level three offers with BTECs, T Levels and trade qualifications. What sets GMIoT apart is our strong employer partnerships. Nothing reassures parents and students more than seeing employers standing shoulder to shoulder with educators at open evenings, endorsing these pathways as viable and valuable. Transforming perceptions of technical education is a long journey, but progress is underway. Institutes of technology are a vital part of the education ecosystem, bridging the gap between traditional academic routes and industry needs. With consistent messaging, bold investments, and strong partnerships, we can ensure that HTE becomes a mainstream choice—not just an alternative.

Apprenticeships serve the public – so devolve them

The British public love apprenticeships. But nationally, the number and proportion of young apprentices are declining. Far too few apprentices– only about 20 per cent – are in ‘skill shortage’ occupations. And far too many are older adults sponsored by their existing employers who want to use up their levy.

Many of these problems are the result of the unique and dysfunctional design of our levy system.  Unlike in other countries, ours is paid by just a few firms and organisations. It also provides the entire apprenticeship budget, since the Treasury does not top it up in any way. Levy-payers are strongly incentivised to use ‘their’ levy up and have become increasingly successful in doing so – hence the huge rise in apprenticeships for older, often quite senior employees.

 The levy badly needs reform.  But in my recent paper for the Social Market Foundation, I argue that the problem with our system isn’t just the levy. It is also the centralisation of spending and administration in Whitehall.

This is particularly bad for small employers.  They are rarely involved in standard-setting, do not understand how the system works, often struggle to find a training provider and have no stable and local port of call from which to get advice. All this on top of a system which leaves less and less apprenticeship money unspent by levy-payers and available for SMEs – who are the backbone of the economy and the source of future growth.

It’s time for us to follow the example of every ‘top’ apprenticeship country and make local authorities and organisations central to delivery. In Switzerland, the cantons (member states) play the major role: in Germany it’s the chambers of commerce, which have a statutory position. Here, it should be the mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) which are already receiving devolved adult education budgets (AEBs).

Ben Rowland, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, argued in these pages that my suggestion was a terrible idea that would take us back ten years. He doubted that I had even ‘bothered to actually ask employers what they want’. On this point: not guilty. I talk very frequently to employers of every type. I’ve experienced, first hand, what it’s like to be a small employer taking on their first apprentice. And in my time as a government adviser, I was lobbied on apprenticeship by a good many employers. That has taught me that different employers want different things!

My proposals concentrate on making apprenticeships work better for small businesses and young people, as the current system manifestly doesn’t. But there is a broader point as well. Apprenticeship isn’t just about an individual company sorting out its immediate training needs. If it were, there would be no reason for governments around the world to support it as they do. A country has a strong interest in making sure that future skill needs are met, and in helping localities to encourage local growth and new industries, including via apprenticeship support. A good apprenticeship system has public benefits: it is not just about today’s employers.

Encouraging apprenticeships in key local sectors is almost impossible unless there are local powers and budgets. But this country has become uniquely centralised. Governments talk devolution, but getting any genuine increase in local autonomy is painful and slow. Witness the current bill abolishing the Institute of Apprenticeship and Technical Education as an independent entity, and delivering all of IfATE’s powers back into the hands of the Secretary of State.

The inevitable query is whether MCAs are up to the task. They will be new to it, without the many decades of stability that underlie the best European systems.  But the critical question isn’t whether they will do everything perfectly. It is whether they will do better than the current system. They are certainly showing every sign of doing so with the AEB. MCA teams know their areas, and their providers. They will be far less subject to the constant changing of ministers, each with their special preoccupations –  and the impossibly short timelines for delivery that come with them. It’s time to devolve.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 486

Shahban Aziz

Managing Director, Textile Centre of Excellence

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Senior Funding Manager, Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Interesting fact: Shahban is passionate about charity work and improving social mobility. He is a trustee at Young Citizens and founder of the Jerusalem Community Fridge.

Mark Emerson

Vice Principal (Curriculum Innovation and Business Transformation), Colchester Institute

Start date: February 2025

Previous Job: Assistant Principal (Information and Digital Transformation), Chelmsford College

Interesting fact: Mark has played, and been sent off, at Wembley in the FA Cup (Unfortunately it was Wembley FC in the first qualifying round!).

Ofsted: You spoke, we listened, now scrutinise our plans

The work of Ofsted is important. It gives learners confidence they are receiving high-quality education, reassures employers their workforce is being trained well, and highlights for providers what is working and what needs to improve.  

This week we launched a consultation on a new way of inspecting and reporting on all types of education provider, including FE providers.  

Last year during Ofsted’s largest ever consultation, the Big Listen, we heard from thousands of parents, school and college leaders, providers, teachers and trainers, nursery staff and of course, learners, including apprentices. In response, we made changes to how we inspect to reduce the burden of inspection on providers.  

There were positives that emerged. You told us the nominee on FE and skills inspections has brought significant improvements to the process and feel of inspection, so we are extending that to schools and early years settings too.  

This new consultation aims to take the reforms enacted after the Big Listen even further. After spending months talking to government, sector organisations and representatives, learners, employers and providers, I’m confident this new way balances the interests of learners and apprentices, and education and training professionals.  

Inspection will continue to be built upon dialogue 

You told us you want a more nuanced view of a provider’s strengths and areas of improvement. So, instead of an overall effectiveness grade we’re proposing a five-point grading scale, allowing inspectors to celebrate successes and pinpoint necessary action to avoid standards declining. Our new report cards will display each grade accompanied by a narrative to describe what we saw on inspection. 

You will also see how we have proposed some new evaluation areas. All providers will be judged on leadership, inclusion and safeguarding. Then each type of provision offered – such as education programmes for young people, apprenticeships, high needs and adult learning programmes – will receive judgements for curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement, and participation and development. Finally, colleges and other specialist designated institutions will be evaluated on how they are contributing to meeting the skills need.  

By separating out these different areas of provision, rather than aggregating them under a few headline grades, we can reduce the inspection pressure on providers. Removing the overall effectiveness grade – and the spotlight it shone on the provider as a whole – allows inspectors to tell a more detailed story about what it’s like to be learner or apprentice in that provision.  

Our chief inspector, Sir Martyn Oliver, has said several times that if providers get it right for the most disadvantaged learners, they will get it right for all of them. So one area we want inspection to focus on is inclusion. This means looking at how well providers are supporting their most vulnerable learners and those with SEND. We already know that FE providers are generally very inclusive, so we hope this new focus will allow you to showcase that great work. 

During the Big Listen, FE providers were also very clear they wanted inspection to recognise the varied contexts they operate in. They wanted a tailored inspection approach that differentiated between large FE colleges and small apprenticeship providers. We are confident our proposals allow for such differentiation – while still maintaining a common framework that enables comparisons between providers. 

There was concern that school sixth forms and 16-19 provision in FE and skills settings will be treated differently. This is absolutely not our intention. We’ve crafted the schools and FE and skills toolkits to ensure parity wherever possible.  

Obviously, there will be overlap between how we evaluate school sixth forms and sixth form colleges. Where appropriate, we will use the same standards to inspect both. But there are differences, for example where 16-19 provision is only one part of a provider’s offer (typically a school sixth form) versus whether it accounts for the work of the entire institution. Separate toolkits allow us to account for such differences.  

The toolkits set out the standards inspectors will be looking at and how grades are determined. The FE and skills toolkit will not only act as an obvious focal point for inspectors and leaders during an inspection, it can also be used as a useful tool by leaders between inspections, to track their own improvement journey. 

Inspection will continue to be built upon professional dialogue. Inspectors always seek out what is typical so they can reach a consensus with leaders about where things are working well, what is on track but remains a work in progress, and what still needs attention.  

In the Big Listen you told us we need to also consider notice periods and the composition of inspection teams. Please be assured that we are looking into these and will engage with relevant membership bodies and providers over the coming months.  

I would really encourage you to read our proposals and give us your honest thoughts. Over the coming weeks we will be testing them across a broad range of providers to understand how they work in practice. We will listen to everyone’s view and consider all feedback we receive before finalising the reforms for the autumn term.